NCLT Kochi: Liability of Personal Guarantor Cannot Exceed Contractual Limit  ||  NCLT Ahmedabad: Must Determine Related Party Status When Insolvency Proceedings Commence  ||  Ker. HC: 'Immediate Official Superior' under NDPS Act must be Interpreted in Relation to the Context  ||  J&K HC: In Cases Involving Narco-Terror Links, Cannot Grant Bail Merely Due to Delay in Trial  ||  J&K HC: Civil Courts Can Hear Waqf Disputes if Waqf Tribunal Does Not Exist  ||  J&K HC: Can’t Invoke Principle of ‘No Work, No Pay’ When Termination is Illegal  ||  Rajasthan HC: Should Not Penalize Party Due to Negligence of Legal Counsel  ||  Delhi High Court Passes John Doe Order Restraining Infringement of ‘Tata’ Trademarks  ||  Delhi HC: Dealing in Crypto Currency Has Profound Implications on Economy of the Country  ||  SC: If Citizens Want to Enjoy Fundamental Right it Should be With Reasonable Restrictions    

Bhushan Prasad Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. - (High Court of Patna) (22 Nov 2018)

A citizen cannot be non-suited on ground that, authority has failed to take decision in decision making process

MANU/BH/2237/2018

Service

The Petitioner has filed the present writ application for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 1023 dated 27th May, 2010, whereby the claim of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that, no promotion can be granted with retrospective effect. The Director while passing the order has lost sight of the hard fact that thrice the Petitioner has to approach the Court for the same relief and due to the reluctance of the respondents the matter of promotion of the Petitioner was not considered and when contempt petition was filed after three rounds of litigation, the Director passed the order holding that, promotion cannot be granted with retrospective effect, hence, the present writ application is the fourth round of litigation. Issue raised in present matter is whether the Respondents can take advantage of their own wrong

The Petitioner was made to suffer on account of reluctance of the Respondents in deciding the claim of the Petitioner. Time and again this Court has also directed the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner but they failed to decide the claim of the Petitioner and after two decades they rejected the claim of the Petitioner saying that, the petitioner has now superannuated and no promotion can be granted with retrospective effect. The Court does not approve the action of the Respondents taking advantage of their own wrong. This case is eye opener for the Education Department as this Court is of the considered view that, if the Petitioner approached the Court regularly for his grievance, the authority of the Education Department is responsible for not doing justice to the teachers.

There is no denial of the fact that similarly circumstanced others have been granted such benefit. In view of the settled doctrine of non-traverse and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Naseem Bano v. State of U.P. and Others, the action of the Respondents is illegal as it is the obligation of the State authorities to grant promotion in accordance with law. A citizen cannot be non-suited on the ground that, authority has failed to decision in decision making process and therefore the right of citizen stands defeated. The Respondents are directed to grant benefit to the Petitioner which was extended to similarly circumstanced other teachers. Petition allowed.

Relevant : Smt. Naseem Bano v. State of U.P. and Others: MANU/SC/0405/1993

Tags : PROMOTION   DENIAL   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved